Wife allowing new PC: Help w/ latest tech specs!?!

Jeff Waters wrote on 6/20/2010, 1:54 PM

Hi Gang,
Hope I don't cause too many rolling eyes with another "what PC should I buy" thread. I'll keep it concise and would REALLY value your advice here.

I've been slumming it with Vegas 9 on an 8 year old XP machine. So, I imagine anything new will be a huge improvement. I'm trying to get the best value for the buck, though. I find my self considering 2 tiers based mostly on processor type & speed. So, let's start there:

AMD vs Intel
1) Any huge reason NOT to choose AMD over Intel?

2) AMD seems to cut the rig cost quite a bit. However there is a swing of about $150:
AMD Athlon X4 635 [quad-core, 2.9Ghz, 2MB L2, 4000MHz bus]
Phenom X4 965 [quad-core 3.4GHz, 2MB L2 + 6MB L3 shared, up to 4000MHz]

Any recommendations on important factors to consider there in terms of Vegas (ie, L2/L3 Ram or speed?)

3) Intel has a huge swing in processor pricing with options in the i5 up to i7 ranges.Could I get away with i5? (And if I wanted to do that to save money, would I be better of with AMD?)

4) Video Card: I've been using ATI for years in machines at work and home. Find them cludgey and often hard to get the right drivers for them. I'm considering this guy: 1.5GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 230 [DVI, HDMI, VGA] - what do you think? Good for Vegas?

Finally, I'll add my expectations and use case. I will primarily be starting on a project to catalogue and begin to edit about 6 years of family videos (now living on dusty miniDV tapes). I'll also be editing AVCHD from a new camera.

All advice is much appreciated!
-Jeff

Comments

kkolbo wrote on 6/20/2010, 5:33 PM

It sounds like this is home use rather than commercial use, so I won't give you the time is money speech and encourage you to build a transformer robot.

You will enjoy the benefits of moving up to a multi-core processor. As for AMD vs. Intel, many Intel multi-core processors have hyperthreading which takes advantage of gaps in the core's execution giving you double the number of logical processor threads. For processor intensive applications, that is an advantage. I have had very good luck with AMD processors. They have been very dependable when paired with the right motherboard. Then again, I haven't had any processor fail. It has always been something else.

It will really come down to how much pain you want in the wallet. As for suggestions, don't read gamers website reviews of processors. Games do a lot of the important processing in the video card, so a cheaper processor means more money available for the video card. They will suggest a six core AMD over the quad core Core i7 because the AMD has enough power and now you can afford a killer video card. This is not the case for Vegas Pro 9. I suggest reading places like Tom's Hardware and similar sites for comparisons. Then you can make your choice based on what you want to spend. Make sure to read the reviews that deal with multi-threaded applications rather than single threaded. Clock speed and cache is what makes those apps run best. Vegas Pro takes full use of all available threads when rendering a number of CODECs and really benefits from more threads. Vegas Pro is often used for benchmarking on the sites dealing with multi-threaded performance. This is what sold me on having a 12 thread processor.

As for video cards, if you are going to play games or such with this machine, buy what your game wants. Otherwise, buy a basic multi-monitor card. Don't spend a lot on it. Vegas doesn't need it. If in the future you start to use GPU assisted software, you can save for a new video card then and toss the old one. I want to run Maya at some point, so I will be saving for a compatible card for a long time.

Take a look at the system specs for some of the users here and you will see what other folks have chosen.

KK

Jeff Waters wrote on 6/20/2010, 7:02 PM

Great info KK!

I hadn't considered # of threads and was just looking at cores. Need to educate myself a bit on that.

Correct, this is for home use... best bang for the buck is in order.

Also, I don't do any gaming. This is strictly for video editing (and email, etc).

Totally surprised at the relative unimportance of the video card. I was expecting that to be a huge factor for Vegas.

Thanks!
Jeff

xberk wrote on 6/20/2010, 7:23 PM

I run Vegas 9.0e on an i5-750 intel. I think it is still the best value. Check my spec. to see my system. I edit native AVCHD without much problem by keeping my timelines at around 5 min or less (editing in sections and then combining for the final render if project longer) .. I build a new system ever year or two , but if you plan on keeping this new PC for a long time then get the fastest i7 you can afford. Buy a cheap video card ( I got a GT9500 for $30) for now and see if Vegas 10 will support CUDA GPU acceleration or not. Many threads on this subject. Vegas Movie Studio 10 does support CUDA GPU so its a fair bet that Vegas Pro 10 will --- might be worth the gamble to get the CUDA GPU in your new system -- or consider using VMS10 as it would probably be all you'd need for the home video work. i5-750 does not do hyperthreading but I don't think Vegas takes advantage of hyperthreading.

kkolbo wrote on 6/20/2010, 8:04 PM

I don't think Vegas takes advantage of hyperthreading.

It does use hyperthreading. Uses all 12 on my core.

Byron K wrote on 6/21/2010, 11:29 AM

Reply by: kkolbo Sony Certified Vegas Trainer, Date: 6/20/2010 2:33:38 PM
As for video cards, if you are going to play games or such with this machine, buy what your game wants. Otherwise, buy a basic multi-monitor card. Don't spend a lot on it. Vegas doesn't need it. If in the future you start to use GPU assisted software, you can save for a new video card then and toss the old one. I want to run Maya at some point, so I will be saving for a compatible card for a long time.

I'd lean towards a CUDA compatible video card. VMS Version 10 uses CUDA so I presume that Pro version will have this feature. There are many 3rd party apps that use CUDA also.

Here are some other posts on the topic:
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=684292

www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=683823

www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=683446

www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=51&MessageID=682902

www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=683518

www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=680421

Graphic Card threads:
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=683867

www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=682549

Perfromance thread:
Subject: NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=526098&Replies=466

RRA wrote on 6/21/2010, 11:52 AM

Hi,

I can recommend nVidia Quadro with CUDA. Working with Vegas you will neen to utilize vector files from other applications. Vectors will demand hardware antialiasing, Quadro has it, lower cards has not, vectors (even text) look terrible on screen without hardware antialiasing.

We expect CUDA support in Vegas Pro but there is no statements from SCS ...

Best regards,

kkolbo wrote on 6/21/2010, 1:56 PM

I would be hesitant to gamble on the video card. Buying a Quadro can be an expensive option. I would rather gamble with a $50 card rather than hundreds. Everyone is assuming that CUDA will be used by Vegas Pro, but SCS has not said anything like that. You would be gambling the money based on conjecture and rumor. Even that, there is no statement on what level of card would be supported. I have a card that is much less expensive than a Quadro that is 216 cores and CUDA enabled. Other applications use its CUDA just fine, but Adobe and Autodesk do not support it.

What I am saying is should if you choose to use a GPU assisted program in the future or should Vegas Pro become GPU assisted, you will want a card that is supported and on "the list" if they get that specific. Tossing a cheap card so that you can get a specific supported card just makes more sense to me. Autodesk for example is very specific about what card is supported for their applications.

BTW, we don't even know how much the GPU assist would benefit Vegas Pro. It is just render time in VMS. My machine renders so fast in the current Vegas Pro version that I would find it hard to justify a $400+ card for a little faster. I have used other applications (NLE's) that are GPU assisted and was unimpressed. Actually they weren't that stable. CS5 is getting good press right now but that is only one.

lynn1102 wrote on 6/21/2010, 4:57 PM

All of my computers are getting old. Can I borrow your wife for a few days?

Lynn

Jeff Waters wrote on 6/21/2010, 5:19 PM

Sorry, no wife swapping.

One other piece that might help: the wife works for HP and gets a nice employee discount... so I sticking with current HP configurations. Removing all other variables (HD size, video card, ram) as common among all my possible configurations, it really comes down to processor choice. A bit hard to back out cost differences on that selection alone, but here are the likely candidates:

AMD Phenom(TM) X4 965 quad-core processor
[3.4GHz, 2MB L2 + 6MB L3 shared, up to 4000MHz]

AMD Phenom(TM) II X6 1090T six-core processor
[3.2GHz, 3MB L2 + 6MB L3 shared, up to 4000MHz]

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-750 quad-core processor
[2.66GHz, 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache]

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-930 quad-core
[2.8GHz, 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache]

These are the options I think I'd be willing to choose between. Vote your preference for a home-hobbyist, penny pinching user... and please let me know what's driving your choice.

Thanks!
Jeff

rs170a wrote on 6/21/2010, 5:40 PM

One other piece that might help: the wife works for HP and gets a nice employee discount.

My wife does as well but when we were looking to buy a laptop for my daughter a year ago, the so-called employee discount wasn't worth the hassle of buying through them :-(

Mike

IAM4UK wrote on 6/21/2010, 6:37 PM

AMD v Intel: Have to give Intel credit in this regard. The i7 kicks booty with Vegas Pro. I got an i7-960, because I'm not a big overclocker, and wanted the rated speed to be fairly high.

ATI v nVidia: I've used both. Used to prefer nV, now using an ATI 5770 in my main rig. Honestly, though, Vegas Pro does not take much advantage of faster GPUs. Yet.

Go for Win 7 64-bit, and get lots of DDR3 RAM. Vegas Pro 64 makes good use of it.

Jeff Waters wrote on 6/22/2010, 4:13 PM

Okay, based on all info shared here, I've narrowed it down to 2 systems and specked out apples to apples cost. Only difference is the processor.

AMD Phenom(TM) II X6 1055T six-core processor
[2.8GHz, 3MB L2 + 6MB L3 shared, up to 4000MHz]
(next step up to 1090T 3.2GHz adds $50)
$1230

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-930 quad-core
[2.8GHz, 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache]
$1260
(next step up to I7-950 3.06Ghz adds $280)

So, these 2 are about the same price. The AMD is six-core: but, if my research is correct, it is a single thread per core. So, 6 threads. If I'm reading things correctly, the I7 is 2 threads per core. So you actually get 8 threads. And, those 2 extra threads could be very useful for Vegas during rendering of many codecs, right?

So, the deciding factor seems to be this thread issue, correct?

And possibly the ability to easily swap out a faster I7 processor later (though I've heard that story before and was always disappointed).

Thoughts?

IAM4UK wrote on 6/23/2010, 7:41 PM

Jeff, go with the i7.

Jeff Waters wrote on 6/24/2010, 4:31 PM

Thanks all!
(I think I'll go with the i7.)
;)

Earl_J wrote on 6/24/2010, 6:00 PM

Jeff,
you didn't mention hard drive space...
one of the factors for speeding up renders is to run Vegas on one HD; put the raw video on a second HD; and render the final video to a third HD to keep the read/write cycles from interfering with each other ...
Discussion here on the forum also recommends 2 GB RAM for each core... so, 8 GB for your quad core i7 ...
* * *
I agree ... i7 with Win 7 64-bit ... you'll never look back - except in amazement! (grin)

Until that time... Earl J.

kkolbo wrote on 6/24/2010, 7:42 PM

Discussion here on the forum also recommends 2 GB RAM for each core... so, 8 GB for your quad core i7 ...

That is 12Gb for my i7. Vroom, Vroom : ) Love 12 threads running. Vegas has actually used 11GB physical memory at one point during an edit.

: -P

Keith

Jeff Waters wrote on 6/25/2010, 5:16 PM

Thanks gang, you guys rock!

UlfLaursen wrote on 6/25/2010, 10:05 PM

That is 12Gb for my i7. Vroom, Vroom : ) Love 12 threads running

Sure thing!! I'm still amazed over my i7. :)
I have a feeling that is as quick af my dual quad core xeon Dell workstation, but just much less in price.

/Ulf

kkolbo wrote on 6/25/2010, 10:07 PM

I have a feeling that is as quick af my dual quad core xeon Dell workstation, but just much less in price.

It should be in the ballpark. Did you get numbers from the HDV render test in the forum? Curious to see how they stack.

KK